Much like in person I pretend to think AI is much more powerful and inevitable than I actually think it is. Professionally it makes very little sense to be truthful. Sincerity won't pay the bills.

"this function should do X, spot inconsistencies, potential issues and bugs"

It's eye opening sometimes.

I've found AI is pretty good at dumb boilerplate stuff. I was able to whip out prototypes, client interfaces, tests, etc pretty fast with AI.

However, when I've asked AI "Identify performance problems or bugs in this code" I find it'll just make up nonsense. Particularly if there aren't problems with the code.

And it makes sense that this is the case. AI has been trained on a mountain of boilerplate and a thimble of performance and bug optimizations.

> Significant productivity gains: Over 80% of respondents indicate that AI has enhanced their productivity.

_Feeling_ more productive is inline with the one proper study I've seen.

1. AI doesn't improve productivity and people just have cognitive biases. (logical, but I also don't think it's true from what I know...)

2. AI does improve productivity, but only if you find your own workflow and what tasks it's good for, and many companies try to shoehorn it into things which just don't work for it.

3. AI does improve productivity, but people aren't incentivised to improve their productivity because they don't see returns from it. Hence, they just use it to work less and have the same output.

4. The previous one but instead of working less, they work at a more leisurely pace.

5. AI doesn't improve producivity, people just feel it's more productive because it requires less cognitive effort to use than actually doing the task.

Any of these is plausible, yet they have massively different underlying explanations.... studies don't really show why that's the case. I personally think it's mostly 2. and 3., but it could really be any of these.